302 Conn. 162
Conn.2011Background
- Defendant Joshua Komisarjevsky faces six counts of capital felony linked to a Cheshire murders/sex-attempt/arson case; codefendant Steven Hayes was separately tried and sentenced to death.
- Jury selection began March 16, 2011; before voir dire, each side submitted a witness list, which the court distributed to potential jurors rather than reading aloud.
- Media requested temporary sealing of the witness lists; the court ordered sealing without prejudice due to concerns about witness intimidation and publicity.
- Intervenors Hartford Courant Co. and reporter Alaine Griffin moved to vacate the sealing order; the court asked for specificity regarding names to be sealed with affidavits.
- Defendant opposed the motion, arguing disclosure would chill witness cooperation and violate Sixth Amendment rights; he claimed the witness list was not a judicial document or, if it was, that sealing was still justified.
- Trial court granted the motion to vacate sealing; defendant appealed to Appellate Court, which stayed and then dismissed for lack of a final judgment; upon review, the Supreme Court treated the petition as a 52-265a appeal and reversed the sealing vacatur, remanding with instructions to reinstate the sealing order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the witness list constitutes a judicial document and whether public access applies | Courant/Griffin: list is a judicial document; public access presumptive. | Komisarjevsky: list is non-judicial or should be sealed due to risk to fair trial and defense preparation. | List presumptively public; but court erred by not weighing Sixth Amendment risk |
| Whether sealing was properly justified under balancing of interests | Public access fosters transparency; risks to witnesses and fair trial insufficiently shown. | Secrecy is necessary to protect fair trial and defense preparation given unprecedented publicity and intimidation threats. | Trial court abused discretion; sealing should continue to protect defendant's rights |
| Whether the trial court properly weighed the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights against public access | Public access overrides concerns; rights to a fair trial are strong but must be balanced. | Right to fair trial and to prepare a defense requires protection from disclosure. | Abuse of discretion; Sixth Amendment rights must prevail over public access in this context |
| Whether the order unsealing the witness list is a final judgment reviewable on appeal | Intervenors argue limited public interest supports disclosure; final judgment issue unresolved. | Order is appealable; timely public interest review warranted. | Court treated as a § 52-265a appeal; ultimately reverses the unsealing order |
| Whether the appropriate jurisdictional route (52-265a vs Curcio) should govern review | 52-265a permits direct Supreme Court review for public-interest disputes; appropriate here. | Curcio interlocutory review applies; issue should be decided under Curcio before other steps. | majority treated as § 52-265a petition; Zarella concurrence would address Curcio; underlying merits resolve sealing question |
Key Cases Cited
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (balancing test for sealing orders; priority of fair trial rights)
- In re Globe Newspaper Co., 729 F.2d 47 (1st Cir. 1984) ( First Amendment access to voir dire; public interest considerations)
- Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 292 Conn. 1 (2009) (defining judicial documents and public access framework)
- State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27 (1983) (test for appealability of interlocutory orders (Curcio test))
- State v. Fielding, 296 Conn. 26 (2010) (final judgment and interlocutory review standards in criminal cases)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (duplicate to emphasize balancing framework)